France is better in almost every department. More creative, better ball control, more speed and better determination. Norway so far looks one dimensional and square, the only positive is that they give 100% in every situation.
WWC19 | Final: USA v Netherlands
- Thread starter jojojo
- Start date
For me, that’s yet another situation that would never have been a penalty before VAR, and rightly so. The French player is jumping in late for the ball, the Norwegian player is first and clears it, but the French has gotten so close she can’t avoid touching her afterwards. With VAR, it’s a lot of magistrates discussing what they can’t NOT call, and the end result is a haphazard and unreasonable penalty to change the game. I start to get the feeling that half of the important games I see are decided by a debatable VAR decision. That wasn’t the aim of VAR, but I’ll be damned if a lot of people didn’t warn it would deteriorate to that fairly quickly.
I fully agree with this.
A little bit that for me too. It's a large part accidental collision - unless you say the challenge is 'reckless' I suppose.
FKs all over the pitch & penalties used to be different, now they aren't so much.
FKs all over the pitch & penalties used to be different, now they aren't so much.
Last edited:
I think on one hand it could have been seen as reckless play on the other hand her opponent went in two-footed herself. Personally I probably wouldn't have overturned it, but I have no idea at all what the right call would've been.
It's not the WWC tournament that would have a problem - it's the rest of the women's game. Access to pitches, stadia, even goalposts is a big deal globally. Most teams wouldn't be able to cover the costs or deal with the extra setup time/charges. It's already tough for most women's teams to find facilities, anything that makes it harder would be a step back.
In any case if you watch a women's team at United's level or higher then the players don't struggle with pitch size or goal size - they train to play 90 minutes on a fullsize pitch and the passing and fitness is fine for that. Most of the problems are about coaching, training time, physical preparation - a lot of the national teams simply don't get that kind of support, and most of the players from a team like Thailand don't get enough practice against decent opposition in their national leagues.
Agreed. I wouldn't call it as a penalty myself because I read it as the French player arriving late and two-footed rather than the Norwegian player acting recklessly. I understand the verdict, and maybe it wouldn't have bothered me if it had been called elsewhere on the pitch - so it's probably the right verdict. Still seems harsh though.
I think it was most definitely the right call as she barely even gets to the ball. If she had full on kicked it, then fine. But she kind of mistimes her kick and kicks past the ball and hits the attacker on the kneecap. Pretty clear pen that for me. If anything, it's the exact same situation as the pen that was given against South Africa on matchday 1 where the SA player even got a second yellow. Just that the South Africa one was far more debatable because in that one the South Africa player indeed played the ball first. The Norway player didn't really get good contact on the ball.
check at around 1:07 mins:
check at around 1:07 mins:
I was for VAR - but I am not anymore. Yes it corrects some decisions - but in some decisions its not used when it should have been, and in some decisions I feel the referee is misjudging it because it often looks worse in replay than when it happens.
You could very well say that the feeling of corruption does not fade away with all the VAR controversy. I would rather have the old system without VAR and have some crappy decisions from the refs than all the commotion and time consumption of VAR and still ending up with a crap decision. All in all a good match tough. Refs and fans not so good imo.
What do you mean not get a good contact ? That is besides the point - she made contact and when her foot goes up afterwards, she hits the attacker who is so close its impossible to avoid her.
I would have disagreed with that. But the better games this time have a been big improvement for me.
Improved technique will always help this too. Helps with the pattern of a game a lot if players don't have to charge here, there & everywhere.
Dimensions were set out by men though don't forget. Due to them forming the footy patriarchy, innit? <---- only half-joking there too, really.
I mean that she kind of doesn't actually hit the ball well but instead hits the player. She scuffs over the ball and barely makes contact.
check at 2:00 mins:
Also check out the earlier video I posted of the South Africa Spain game and look at the pen incident in that.
With respect the Norwegian player didn’t get to the ball first, the French player and as the defender was trying to clear, the ball was no longer there so it resulted in the French attacker being kicked above the knee.
Dimensions were mostly set by English men who were (on average) roughly the same size as English women are now, and most of the men writing them were nothing like as fit as the French or US team are.
Should it be 10% on the ball or 90% then? How are the rules? She clearly hits the ball, and gets the ball away drom the french player. The other players runs into her kicks trajectory. The thing is the ref did not see all angles of the situation, she only saw it from the angles not showing the hit of the ball so clearly as the one on TV from the opposite view. And the whole point was about clearing it away, not performing a perfect kick on the ball. If this had been Lindelof clearing a ball in a CL final and the same had happened and United lost due to this I wonder if hell had not broken loose
Playing 2-3-5 with the backs hoofing it up to the 5 forwards I thinkDimensions were mostly set by English men who were (on average) roughly the same size as English women are now, and most of the men writing them were nothing like as fit as the French or US team are.
thankfully, things have progressed a little bit
(only messing honest,
)Sorry, disagree.
Don't think it would be anywhere near that easy and don't think the ground owners/clubs would want the hassle .... as much as women's football has a right to progress, if we're honest, it's the men's game that takes priority/brings in the money?
Also, I don't think women footballers would want to be treated differently? ("there you go darling, have fun on your little pitch")? They play on rugby pitches, cricket, hockey (?), Etc.
Finally, I think it's counter productive. At some point, women would have to play on full pitches? Sooner they do it, sooner they improve - maybe short-term, they adopt a shorter pass style. There's already plenty of teams and players who look ok on it .. that pass by the French defender late on (Renard?) was 50 yards cross field.
Vive la différence? Non.
It never counted in the first place. This has always been a made-up rule
13th June
Thursday's matches:
C: Australia v Brazil 17:00 - BBC2
B: South Africa v China 20:00 - BBC red button
Of the four teams playing today, only Brazil have points so far. With the best third placed teams going through, these aren't necessarily must wins.
China play Spain in their last match, so they'll see today as the day to get points - South Africa are ranked 49th, to China's 16th.
Australia/Brazil should be a good contest, but both of them will be using this game to play themselves into form - so it may be the scrappy game rather than the beautiful one. We shall see.
C: Australia v Brazil 17:00 - BBC2
B: South Africa v China 20:00 - BBC red button
Of the four teams playing today, only Brazil have points so far. With the best third placed teams going through, these aren't necessarily must wins.
China play Spain in their last match, so they'll see today as the day to get points - South Africa are ranked 49th, to China's 16th.
Australia/Brazil should be a good contest, but both of them will be using this game to play themselves into form - so it may be the scrappy game rather than the beautiful one. We shall see.
Last edited:
The French penalty was NEVER a penalty.
It basically now means that it doesn't matter if I jump into a tackle late and two footed AND the other player kicks the ball away from me, because I was slightly caught in the after-action of them kicking the ball it's a penalty? Ludicrous decision I'm sorry.
It basically now means that it doesn't matter if I jump into a tackle late and two footed AND the other player kicks the ball away from me, because I was slightly caught in the after-action of them kicking the ball it's a penalty? Ludicrous decision I'm sorry.
Yeah, I'd have gone with the, "6 of one and half a dozen of the other," rule there. I don't know what other camera angles were showing, but I don't see how VAR could call it (overruling the ref) on what they showed on the TV screens during the review.
Absolutely, the ref played on initially and that's the decision she should have taken there too. Me neither, the replays on screen made it so obvious that the French player jumped in recklessly with both feet and the Norwegian player kicks the ball away. As you say, unless VAR has seen another angle we are unaware on then is should never have been given. I thought Norway were excellent too and very harsh defeat to take for them.
So far USA and France were quite impressive. Which I think was to be expected? Which other countries are good?
Spain was good in possession but lacked end product both games. Germany won twice with 2 kind of disappointing “get the job done” type performances: end product but without a dominant style. The Dutch also weren’t great from what I saw. I didn’t see Sweden, England, Australia, Canada or Japan.
I honestly don't know whether the Dutch are good. I know Lieke Martens won the Balon D'or a few years back and she seems quite skilled, but apart from her and Miedema I've not been very impressed.
Spain had Hermoso who is exceptional. Right now the issue for many big teams seems they have one or two outstanding players and then 8 who aren't even close. France, US and England are the teams with three or four genuine quality players. Teams like Chile and Brazil depend on one star player. If she isn't on it, they lose.
I think USA/France are the only ones who've looked impressive (and the US were playing a minnow in their mega-win. Canada defended well in their opener, Germany seem to get the job done - but all the other teams look uninspired or showed major weaknesses (like Spain in front of goal). Of course it's still really early days, plenty of time for someone to hit top form.
The significant thing is that if the groups play out according to seeding, France and the USA should meet in the QF in Paris (I've got a ticket
) - the match should be huge, and loud. Incidentally, if England do top their group and make the SF, then they play the winners of that game. It feels like the other half of the draw doesn't have a standout team yet.I heard our pundits saying that Chile and Thailand are the 2 worst teams in the tournament. Is it that bad for them or are our pundits just not very knowledgeable?
@jojojo
The support for the USA was very loud and enthusiastic. Surprisingly so for such an uncompetitive game. I can see it being a spectacle if the game's close. For all the pushing our media do to have us support the ladies, we could learn a thing or two from the US' support.
I have to admit that I'm sort of warming up to the tournament. After a few games you become able to judge the games on their on merits instead of constantly comparing them to the men.
Chile aren't great. But they're an example of a team with one outstanding player. Their goalkeepeer is probably the best in the world in her position - Christiane Endler. I'd advise anyone interested to watch the next Chile game just to see how much better she is than all the other goalies at the tournament. Thailand, well, yeah, they are truly bad. But you have to remember - a lot of these teams aren't professional and many of these women haven't even been playing year-round. Comparing the facilities avaialable to the US and French women's team to the facilities available to the Thailand women's team is like comparing Real Madrid's facilities to those of an under 6's team in Mali.
I love a good hyperbole.A good goalkeeper seems like a huge advantage indeed. Some of these keepers can barely catch a football it seems.
Another player to watch for is Christane for Brazil. She's 34 and coming to the end of her career and this will be her last major tournament. She and Kerr for Australia are the players to watch in the game today.
They're certainly way down there, but once you get past the top 30 ranked teams it's hard to tell. Some teams go inactive for a couple of years (like Argentina) so may be better than their rankings. Thailand's ranking points basically all come from wins last year mostly against even smaller neighbours, with no football infrastructure, so they're probably worse than their ranking.
Countries like Jamaica, officially the lowest ranked in the tournament, were only recently rescued by sponsors - who funded travel and expenses to qualify, and helped some of the players get pro/semipro contracts in foreign leagues or scholarships to US colleges. Once you get below the top 20/30, teams can look much better/worse than their ranking depending on funding that year, and whether they've got a proper manager/coach at that time.
You can clearly see that the ball moves away from the French player before she hits her knee. And today I heard something fairly disturbing from Jonas Eriksson who was a fairly respected referee. When the referee saw the video, she was only given one angle to watch the situation from, whereas the viewers saw the situation from 3-4 different angles. So basically the videoreferees more or less decides if its gonna be a penalty or not, by showing the situation from the angle they choose. Sorry - but VAR is turning into a joke.
I never disputed that she didn't make contact with the ball. I said she barely made contact with the ball, but mostly missed her kick and hit the attacker in the knee. If it's an important discussion for you, please feel free to look at the other stuff I posted (the penalty decision against South Africa, which is basically the same situation but even less convincing). That said, I think this one sadly was a penalty, although I was rooting for Norway. You can't mistime your kick and get 50% air, 45% attacking player, and 5% of the ball.
Also look at it again in real time at 1:20 mins in this FIFA summary video. It's a really clumsy clearance. Of course she didn't mean to kick the attacker's knee. But she does.
VAR in action again. Interesting one, it could have been a penalty for Australia - but on review they found a handball by Australia earlier in the move.
Now the ref awards a penalty to Brazil, confirmed by VAR. Not 100% clearcut but definitely clumsy by the Australian defender.
Marta scores the penalty.
Marta scores the penalty.
Wasn't there a handball too?
Wasn't it just for the push/pull by the defender? I didn't see a handball.
I swear, that brazilian winger is better than Young.